Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16977
Title: Patients' preferences for adjuvant sorafenib after resection of renal cell carcinoma in the SORCE trial: what makes it worthwhile?
Austin Authors: Blinman, P;Davis, Ian D;Martin, A;Troon, S;Sengupta, S ;Hovey, E;Coskinas, X;Kaplan, R;Ritchie, A;Meade, A;Eisen, T;Stockler, Martin R
Affiliation: Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
ANZUP Cancer Trials Group, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
Monash University Eastern Health Clinical School, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia
NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia
Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia
Nelune Cancer Centre, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia
MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, London, United Kingdom
Gloucestershire Royal Hospital, Gloucester, United Kingdom
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom
Issue Date: 21-Nov-2017
Publication information: Annals of Oncology 2017; online first: 21 November
Abstract: BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the survival benefits that patients judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant therapy with sorafenib for 1 year, or for 3 years after resection of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in the SORCE trial. METHODS: SORCE participants from all sites in Australia and New Zealand, and selected sites in the UK, completed a validated preferences questionnaire at months 0, 3, 15 and 42 to elicit the minimum survival benefits they judged sufficient to warrant adjuvant sorafenib for 1 year (versus observation), or for 3 years (versus 1 year). The questionnaires used reference survival times of 5 years and 15 years; and reference survival rates at 5 years of 65% and 85%. RESULTS: The 233 participants had a median age of 57 years (range 29 to 78) and 71% were male. For 1 year of sorafenib versus no adjuvant therapy, the median benefits in survival times judged sufficient to warrant treatment were an extra 9 months beyond 5 years and an extra 1 year beyond 15 years; the median benefit in survival rates were an extra 4% beyond 65% and an extra 3% beyond 85% at 5 years. For 3 years of sorafenib versus 1 year of sorafenib, the median benefit in survival time judged sufficient to warrant extended treatment was an extra 1 year beyond both 5 years and 15 years. Participants randomly allocated treatment with sorafenib judged larger benefits necessary than those allocated placebo. Participants' preferences were not associated with their baseline characteristics or the interval from randomisation. CONCLUSION: Most participants judged an extra year of survival necessary to warrant 1 year of adjuvant sorafenib worthwhile, and an additional year of survival to warrant extending the duration of sorafenib from 1 year to 3 years. Patients' preferences are important in shared-decision-making. SORCE trial clinical trials number = NCT00492258.
URI: http://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16977
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx715
ORCID: 0000-0002-9066-8244
PubMed URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29177440
Type: Journal Article
Subjects: Adjuvant therapy
Decision-making
Patients’preferences
Renal cell carcinoma
Sorafenib
Appears in Collections:Journal articles

Show full item record

Page view(s)

2
checked on Dec 5, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.